On 23 Dec, 23:28, "Brian G" wrote:
wrote:
On 23 Dec, 19:20, "Brian G" wrote:
wrote:
On 23 Dec, 15:33, "
wrote:
We have a cellar that holds water in our 180yr old house. I've
recently had to replace the bottom 3 stairs and the pantry floor
because the timber had rotted due to the water vapour when the
cellar fills up with water(approx 3 inch of water). Cellar is 7
foot deep and until recently had no air bricks at all and the
timber that rotted had no doubt been there years so it lasted
quite long.

I have installed 2 air bricks and replaced the floor and stairs
with treated(tanalised) timber. I used bitumen paint on the ends
of the timber where they came in contact with the damp masonry.
This was maybe 3 months ago and today I went down in the cellar
and was rather shocked to see that the areas of the timber that
had bitumen on are dripping with water and also there is white
mould on certain parts on the timbers?

Dear Mark
Are you sure it is mould and not fungus (not mould)or
efflorescence(salt crystals? If so take a picture and I will have a
look
To get a fungus after 3 months is not likely

Chris
PS
IF itis tanalised and has not been cut it is impervious to decay
c

-----------------------------------------

"To get a fungus after 3 months is not likely"

It is possible for timber to be infected with the dry rot fungus
well within three months - although unlikely with tanalised timber.

I have actuall seen new skirtings and window frames re-infected
within that time because a proper dry-rod eradication program had
not been carried out before their renewal.

"IF itis tanalised and has not been cut it is impervious to decay"

That is factually incorrect - tanalising only delays the onset of
decay (albeit for a long period and dependent upon local conditions)
whether cut or not.

Brian G- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Brian
Evidence please to support these two assertions?

All my working life repairing buildings as a carpenter and general forman.

To answer you the fungus question first:

I have supervised the renewal of joinery in a property that was severly
infected with dry rot without first eradicating the damn stuff (against my
direct advice) and within three months, the new timber was infected - after
that little episode, my advice was followed.

You gave a sweeping statement that "IF itis tanalised and has not been cut
it is impervious to decay".

That is untrue, I have seen rotten tanalised timber - and in fact, the life
of such timber in certain circumstances is around 5 years.



A huge snip

Chris,

With all due deference to your knowledge (and I must admit I got bored with
the length of your post and gave up less than halfway through [1]) timber is
a living thing, and no amount of treatment by tanalisation (or any other
method for that matter) will allow it to last forever - all it does is
*prolong* its life.

And that is from over 40 years of working with the damn stuff and not
running laboratory experiments.

[1] * *Don't take offence at that as I have read the
specifications/dissertations and listened to archtitects, surveyors,
chemists and company reps spouting on about several different types of
timber treatment over the years and taken a lot of the information with a
'pinch of salt' - especially when even the so-called 'experts' try to
rubbish each other's claims.

And one of my joys was calling a rather arrogant rep back five years after
using his firms so-called "guaranteed for ever" treatment, to show him a
lovely piece of joinery thoroughly rotten and totally useless - that's life.

Never mind, have a nice Christmas.

Brian G- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Brian
Thank you for your wishes for Christmas. I asked for your evidence. As
I see it your response was
a) 40 years as a carpenter and general foreman on site
[I have 32 years practical site experience as a specialist in control
of wood-destroying organisms ranging from woodworm to fungi AND prior
to that 9 years academic qualification both as a timber engineer and
quite specifically in Fungal Enzymic Degradation of Wood with
particular reference to Hemicelluloses]
b)You assert without any EVIDENCE of scientific experimental data
quoted that "..[1]) timber is a living thing, and no amount of
treatment by tanalisation (or any other method for that matter) will
allow it to last forever - all it does is *prolong* its life. "
[The first sentence is factually incorrect - timber is a DEAD tree. OK
so you meant it WAS once a living thing. You go on to say no amount of
treatment will "allow" it to last "forever". This is quite true but
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POST is quite a ludicrous "argument" as the
world is only likely to last another 4,000,000 years before it gets
swallowed up by the sun and nothing lasts forever. What you meant by
the term I cannot guess but suspect you mean forseable future in terms
of mankind's history which would, say be several hundred thousand
years[?} I was not making such a claim. I said it would be impervious
to decay and my statement was limited to THAT HOUSE and THAT
ENVIRONMENT cited in the post - namely a cellar subject to occasional
flooding.
Because I have studied the ~Tanalith process as a biochemist (my first
degree) I have an understanding of the effect of heavy metal ions on
the enzymes used to decay wood and uniquely in the wood preserving
processes the tanalith does provide a chemical bond. It is thus more
resistant to leeching that any other process as you cannot leach out
an active ingredient that is chemically bound. Thus, your statement
"...no amount of treatment by tanalisation (or any other method for
that matter) will allow it to last forever - all it does is
*prolong* its life..." is NOT correct in this situation. Of course it
is correct in that NOTHING including the Earth lasts forever but that
is simply not pertinent to this discussion. Such timber WILL last
indefinately in a house that is irregularly flooded as there is no
known decay mechanism that will attack such timber provided it has not
been cut and the envelope of treated timber is there and contains more
than 4 kgs per cubic m. I HAVE seen many cases of dry rot growing over
such timber on site and can quote chapter and verse of experimental
data to support the statement by means of accelerated ageing and
weight loss tests of treated samples. So I have not only support from
academic sources for my statment but also from my 32 years on site
running a business repairing timbers in houses.

3)
"And that is from over 40 years of working with the damn stuff and not
running laboratory experiments."

The lack of laboratory understanding, let alone chemical knowledge is
a limitation not evidence in support. The pejorative reference to
laboratory experiments shows you to be NOT open minded and open to
reasoned argument supported by data.

4) re "as I have read the specifications/dissertations and listened to
archtitects, surveyors,
chemists and company reps spouting on about several different types of
timber treatment over the years "
[I have a degree in biochemistry, four years of study specifically in
timber degradation by fungi resluting in a PhD, two futher degrees
one in timber engineering and was the first person to get credits in
all three modules of the professional exam CSRT run by the Institute
of Wood Science. I have lectured to these architects and engineers at
the SPAB and to a certain extent agree with you that many if not most
of the practicioners in the field (especially the salesmen) do not
know what they are talking about but quoting their opinons as wrong
should not let you fall into the trap of putting me in the same box as
them.]
5)re "and taken a lot of the information with a 'pinch of salt' -
especially when even the so-called 'experts' try to rubbish each
other's claims. " Well at last we agree!
6)re "And one of my joys was calling a rather arrogant rep back five
years after
using his firms so-called "guaranteed for ever" treatment, to show him a
lovely piece of joinery thoroughly rotten and totally useless - that's life."
Of what relevance to any of my assertions is this wholly predictable
and quite true anecdote? None - you fall into the trap of conflating
two separate issues.

I suggest it is probably that any experience you have of tanalised
timber rotting on site (and you have not cited any) is due to cutting
of the envelope rather than failure of the treatment.
I rest my case.

Chris